>Personally if I went back to being an atheist again, and I thought that God
>was just a comforting illusion like the Tooth Fairy, I would not see there
>was any good reason on atheist premises for robbing my fellow human beings
>of their comforting illusions
As another ex-atheist, I agree entirely. If I were to return to
atheism, I'd return a little wiser. And part of that wisdom
would entail the notion that truth usually doesn't matter if
atheism is true.
Susan replied:
>You are so fond of quoting, here's a quote for you from Bertrand Russell:
>"I am constantly asked: What can you, with your cold rationalism, offer to
>the seeker after salvation that is comparable to the cosy homelike comfort
>of a fenced-in dogmatic creed? To this the answer is many-sided. In the
>first place, I do not say that I can offer as much happiness as is to be
>obtained by the abdication of reason.
Let me put my old atheism cap back on:
At this point, Russell is assuming truth is more important than
happiness, but I think this is really a hold-over from Christian
theology/philosophy. If happiness comes by the abdication
of reason, then so be it. During this brief moment of existence
that we all share, many would choose a state of happiness born
of delusion than a state of misery born of truth. And can we
*really* say this is irrational?
Remember the old Star Trek episode with Capt. Pike? He
was given a choice of living out the rest of his
life in a deluded state, whereby he would live happily ever
after with a beautiful woman. Or he could continue to be
locked in his extremely lonely handicapped state. If this mere
existence is all that we have, I would consider it irrational
for him to live in the truth.
Atheist cap off.
>I do not say that I can offer as much
>happiness as is to be obtained from drink or drugs or amassing great wealth
>by swindling widows and orphans.
The happiness that comes from Christianity may be like the
happiness of drink or drugs or it may indeed also be founded
in the truth. Atheists believe the former, Christians believe
the latter. One of the great things about Christianity is that
truth and happiness converge, but as we can see from
Russell's views, there is a huge tension between the two.
Russell, trying to be noble, chooses truth *over* happiness.
But if he is correct in his views, it doesn't matter squat if
anyone is noble or not.
>It is not the happiness of the individual
>convert that concerns me; it is the happiness of mankind. If you genuinely
>desire the happiness of mankind, certain forms of ignoble pesonal happiness
>are not open to you.
Here we see the confused, cruel mentality of someone like Russell.
It's confused for the simple reason that concepts like "the happiness
of mankind" are nonsensical. Happiness makes sense only on the
individual level. It is a concrete emotional state that applies to
concrete individuals. 'Mankind' is purely an abstraction. Now, it
is common for atheists to find God-substitutes like "mankind."
The individual is typically forced to bow before the collective
(which is why communism was such a logical outcome of
atheism). But in reality, Russell is in no position to tell us
what makes 'mankind' happy. He is no more of a spokesperson
for 'mankind' than any other individual. He is only an individual
and not the incarnation of 'mankind.' He can tell us what
would make him happy, but he is confused in thinking he can
tell us what makes this abstraction called 'mankind' happy.
Russell's mentality is also cruel. Let's say he is right about
his atheism. But reality is that many people's happiness is
tied to their religious belief. This is often especially important
to those who are not as comfortable as a respected white male
college professor from the early 20th century. Imagine a religious
person in extreme poverty, or someone who is severely handicapped,
or someone imprisoned for life. For such people, their faith may
indeed bring a context to their experience such that happiness
exists. Someone like Russell would come along and rob these
people of their individual faith, thus happiness, because *he*
can afford to do with it out and has his subjective *opinions* about
what ought to make "makind" happiest. He would cruelly sacrifice real
live human beings at the alter of "mankind" and "truth." He
cares more about some abstraction called 'mankind' than
real people.
>If your child is ill, and you are a conscientous
>parent, you accept medical diagnosis, however doubtful and discouraging; if
>you accept the cheerful opinion of a quack and your child consequently dies,
>you are not excused by the pleasantness of belief in the quack while it
lasted."
Bad analogy. If the parents refuse the medical diagnosis, concrete,
detectable negative consequences will follow. If someone refuses
to abandon their religious faith, no concrete, detectable negative
consequences will follow (note how Russell shifts from the
individual to 'mankind' but then comes back to the individual
level for an example).
Steve:
>The sort of atheist who would really impress me would be one whose life
>was consistent with his/her creed. Atheists who rage against their fellow
>human beings (who on the atheists' own premises are just evolved apes
>with minds that are ultimately chemical reactions), for not obeying capital
>`T' Truth, are in my book *deeply* and *absurdly* inconsistent!
Susan:
>:-) we are a social species and we evolved to be altruistic. People who
>behave in uncompassionate and unaltruistic ways are being "unnatural."
Be careful. One could just as easily argue that we evolved to be religious.
In fact, evolving compassion, altruism, and a religious sense may all
be tied together. Thus, we could argue that people who behave in
nonreligious ways are being "unnatural."
>Also true information is important to survival. In medieval times it was
thought
>that disease was caused by sin. They were wrong. Nasty old materialistic
>science has introduced the idea of the germ theory of disease and developed
>the antibiotics to kill the germs.
Truth need not be tied to survival. For example, one could believe that
X caused diseased, but in reality, X may only predispose one to disease.
Thus, the belief would be false, but still be of survival value. For that
matter, one could believe that X is against the will of God, or something
that will bring a curse on your head if done. These too would be of
survival value, even if not true.
>I'm sure design theory will produce even
>more useful stuff--once a theory of design is formulated.
I doubt if any design theory will look like a "disease follows from
sin" claim. That is, the concept of design does not carry a
moral component to it. Instead, it deals only with a rational
component. And I have already *demonstrated* here that it can
be useful, as I used the concept of intelligent design to
accurately predict the existence of proofreading during
transcription when I did not know this existed.
Susan:
>What I oppose is deliberate, willful, rapacious ignorance.
Steve:
>See above. I assume Susan is speaking specifically of "anti-evolutionists"
>here. If so, is Susan claiming that *all* "anti-evolutionists" are guilty of
>"deliberate, willful, rapacious ignorance"?
Susan:
>See above. I make a distinction between the anti-evolutionists who know the
>truth and lie, and the anti-evolutionists who believe them.
Such black and white thinking. Notice this extremist mindset has no
room for someone who is reasonably skeptical. You either know
the truth and lie or you are ignorant. Period. Of course, I'm not even sure
how Susan defines "anti-evolutionist." But I suspect that doesn't matter.
Mike